U.S. cannot ignore international rule of law

Published: Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 08:00 AM.

Jonah Goldberg’s Sunday column on the legality of attacking Syria (“Who cares what the U.N. thinks about U.S. policy”) misses the mark by a wide margin in any regard to both international and American law.

Goldberg disdainfully rejects the importance of the United Nations, claiming that any appeal to the Security Council is merely an option, a “perfect world” route to war. It is critical to remember that the U.N. Charter is the foundation of modern international law; it is a document endorsed by every country in the world. The charter explicitly prohibits the use (or threat) of force in international affairs unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

The assent of that body is absolutely required to make any military attack legal. It is far more than a “blessing” or “endorsement,” as usually described in the media and by Goldberg. Without Security Council authorization, war is simply illegal. The single exception in the charter is the Article 51 provision for self-defense, which allows states to fight in defense against ongoing armed attack, and even then only until the Security Council has the opportunity to act.

It is an undeniable principle of international law that without U.N. authorization, war is always a crime unless in defense against an actual attack. But even for those who may not care a bit about international law, these principles are incorporated into U.S. law, at least if the Constitution has anything to say about it. The U.N. Charter is a formal treaty signed and ratified by the United States, making it part of the “supreme Law of the Land” according to Article 6 of the Constitution. Those who proclaim a near-religious reverence for the Constitution would do well to remember this.

We can ignore these constraints all we want, but in doing so we are openly rejecting the rule of law and embracing a world of rule by force. We also lose any claim to moral high ground and opt instead for an amoral world.

ADAM CIARELLA Panama City

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published
without permission. Links are encouraged.

Jonah Goldberg’s Sunday column on the legality of attacking Syria (“Who cares what the U.N. thinks about U.S. policy”) misses the mark by a wide margin in any regard to both international and American law.

Goldberg disdainfully rejects the importance of the United Nations, claiming that any appeal to the Security Council is merely an option, a “perfect world” route to war. It is critical to remember that the U.N. Charter is the foundation of modern international law; it is a document endorsed by every country in the world. The charter explicitly prohibits the use (or threat) of force in international affairs unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

The assent of that body is absolutely required to make any military attack legal. It is far more than a “blessing” or “endorsement,” as usually described in the media and by Goldberg. Without Security Council authorization, war is simply illegal. The single exception in the charter is the Article 51 provision for self-defense, which allows states to fight in defense against ongoing armed attack, and even then only until the Security Council has the opportunity to act.

It is an undeniable principle of international law that without U.N. authorization, war is always a crime unless in defense against an actual attack. But even for those who may not care a bit about international law, these principles are incorporated into U.S. law, at least if the Constitution has anything to say about it. The U.N. Charter is a formal treaty signed and ratified by the United States, making it part of the “supreme Law of the Land” according to Article 6 of the Constitution. Those who proclaim a near-religious reverence for the Constitution would do well to remember this.

We can ignore these constraints all we want, but in doing so we are openly rejecting the rule of law and embracing a world of rule by force. We also lose any claim to moral high ground and opt instead for an amoral world.